These 11 Cities Are Growing Faster Than San Francisco

 

http://www.citylab.com/housing/2015/05/these-11-cities-are-growing-faster-than-san-francisco/393860/

Wow, Charlotte is slowing down.

 

Re: Columbus and downtown development:

 

The area considered "downtown" is pretty big, all things considered. There is more than enough room right now to build conservative (<10 stories) and still have good population growth in the core. High Street is filling up quickly, but I wouldn't be shocked to see something like East Mound St. take off with the new freeway exit. That entire corridor is screaming to be redone.

 

The amazing part about what is being built is that it *can't be done fast enough* for the demand. That right there makes me curious why things aren't going higher...maybe developers are still a little gun shy after the recession? I have no idea, but as it stands they set their price when it comes to living downtown.

Question:  Why hasn't the population boom in Columbus led to more downtown development?  Off the top of my head, maybe it's just not a downtown-centric city.  Imagine if even half of the office buildings around 270 were instead built as towers downtown.  But they weren't, which helps to fuel the typical view of Columbus being smaller than it is.  But the same goes for many of the newer "big" cities, like Phoenix and San Jose, even Indy.  They all have small downtowns, relative to their modern populations.  And Columbus already has more skyline than any of those cities. 

 

Cincinnati recently added a major piece in Great American.  Cleveland is getting at least three new towers this decade (E&Y, Hilton, Nucleus).  Given how much it's outpacing the other C's in population these days, isn't Columbus also due for some next-level downtown developments?  Is there a general sense that might happen soon? 

 

Columbus has had a TON of Downtown development in the last 10-15 years.  People seem to forget that the Arena District IS a part of Downtown and that land has always been included in the CBD census tracts for as long as census tracts have existed (1920s).  A good chunk of that happed around 2000, but it's been steadily adding more since then.  As far as the rest of Downtown, there has been a lot of other projects as well, and the pace is only increasing.  Between 1500 and 2000 new residents have moved there since 2010, and the area around Downtown in adjacent neighborhoods have probably added at least double that.  I can provide a list of recently completed, current and planned development in the area if you want.

 

The view that Columbus is smaller or low density or only suburban largely seems to come from those who simply don't like Columbus or may be jealous of its relative success in a state that hasn't seen a lot of it in recent decades.  With recent population estimates out, Columbus is as dense as Cincinnati now, if not even a bit higher, despite being 3x larger.  To be able to accomplish that feat, it has to have high densities near the core, and it does.  Given that the city is virtually not annexing at all (less than 0.3 square miles since 2010) anymore, and growing at a rate over 12,000 people a year, it's density is going to go up pretty quickly. 

 

 

 

Given that the city is virtually not annexing at all (less than 0.3 square miles since 2010) anymore, and growing at a rate over 12,000 people a year, it's density is going to go up pretty quickly.

 

That right there is the key. Columbus is not annexing like it did in the 50s and 60s. In fact, it only annexes upon request these days and has annexation agreements with some bordering townships. The growing power of the suburbs, along with the diminishing power of the "annex for water" argument and the Big Darby Accord means the era of Columbus annexation is past. Yet it still grows...

The reason Columbus has the 'suburban' reputation is because Polaris, Easton, Tuttle, Blacklick, many areas with New Albany or Hilliard mailing addresses that are actually within Columbus city limits. Also the Polarises of yesteryear along 161 and Morse Road. There is just nothing like that in Cleveland or Cincinnati. There are far more areas of postwar development overall in Columbus.

 

That being said I would bet a lot of the 'suburban' areas I just mentioned are denser than huge chunks of the East Side of Cleveland or the West Side of Cincinnati. The former having lots of abandoned industrial zones/residential neighborhoods and the latter having lots and lots of hills.

 

Downtown Columbus (other than the Arena District) is getting better, the Commons is great and the apartments going up around there are only going to increase. Also the Scioto project is going to be really cool. Neighborhoods are where the city really shines though. Those areas adjacent to downtown will continue to densify and redensify over the coming decades.

I don't pay much attention to the city populations anymore, particularly when comparing Midwest cities to those down South. The city populations alone can be telling in regards to the resources available to the city government, but that seems to be about it. I can't imagine any 'old' Great Lakes city ever reaching its peak population in the next 50-75 years, if ever, and I don't think that's a problem.

 

The MSA and CSA populations and associated trends are much more interesting, and telling about the health of the region overall. The old "Rust Belt" metros are still relatively stagnant; from Buffalo to South Bend, Detroit to Dayton, almost none are seeing sustained regional growth, save Indy, Cols, and maybe Cincy. Detroit, Toledo, Cleveland, Akron, Pittsburgh, and many smaller cities are treading water, and have been since the 1970s.

 

Columbus has a massive inferiority complex. It usually comes out with the Mayor or Dispatch columnists saying something along the lines of "See! We are too a big city. We're the 15th largest city in the nation!"

 

Cleveland also has a massive inferiority complex. It usually involves people talking about how "We were the sixth city 80 years ago! John D Rockefeller lived here! We were like, the richest City besides New York for a long time! Columbus is a cowtown, we're bigtime! Big 5 orchestra anyone?"

 

Cincinnati I'm sure does it too but I have to think about what their's is as I haven't spent as much time there.

 

Point is, that's why Columbus is defensive about the suburban thing. Years of being referred to as 'cowtown' cause people to want to justify their large city-ness. At the end of the day, the suburban thing is definitely true but it doesn't make the city's urban core any less desirable. Also, seeing that all of these cities still have just as many suburbs, and the only difference is that Columbus' suburbs are within city limits, well I'd rather have Columbus than the fragmented political mess that exists in Cuyahoga County for example.

 

I hope nobody gets upset at my characterization, I love all these cities or I wouldn't be here. :) Unfortunately I think this inferiority thing is just part of the psychological condition of Ohio. It also drives all of these 3C pissing contests.

 

Moral of the story is city populations mean nothing.

I don't pay much attention to the city populations anymore, particularly when comparing Midwest cities to those down South. The city populations alone can be telling in regards to the resources available to the city government, but that seems to be about it. I can't imagine any 'old' Great Lakes city ever reaching its peak population in the next 50-75 years, if ever, and I don't think that's a problem.

 

The MSA and CSA populations and associated trends are much more interesting, and telling about the health of the region overall. The old "Rust Belt" metros are still relatively stagnant; from Buffalo to South Bend, Detroit to Dayton, almost none are seeing sustained regional growth, save Indy, Cols, and maybe Cincy. Detroit, Toledo, Cleveland, Akron, Pittsburgh, and many smaller cities are treading water, and have been since the 1970s.

 

 

I'm not even sure it's really possible to reach our peak populations again with improved living conditions. This is a huge factor that rarely, if ever, gets talked about. Back in 1900 people crammed themselves into tinier living spaces than they do today. A house that may have once housed two parents with 6 kids might house just 2 or 3 people today. Single occupancy buildings Downtown might now only house 1/20th the amount of people. It's entirely possible that every single plot of land in Cleveland could become occupied and we'd still be nowhere near that 900,000 mark. And that's fine. It's just a sign that the people who live in Cleveland live in better conditions. And the same thing has happened in every city in this country that grew before the turn of the 20th Century. NYC, Boston, Philly, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Cincy, St. Louis, Detroit, Chicago, etc. Yes, several of those suffered from mass abandonment as well, but even places like NYC that have seen nearly nonstop development since the 80s have just barely moved ahead of their peak population. Manhattan and Brooklyn are still below their peak populations (Manhattan by hundreds of thousands) but that's just because living conditions have improved.

 

Being a resident of OTR in Cincy, that's one thing I think people forget when they talk about the peak population of 45,000. Sure, that's a ton and awesome. But even if fully built out it's unlikely we'd be any more than half that. And that's because we're not cramming people into 90 square foot units that have a communal bathroom for 30 different units in a building. And that's a good thing.

 

Newer cities that grew up after the turn of the century, and more specifically after WWII, don't have this problem. Living conditions now aren't that different from post-WWII development. Therefore even as things change the population won't plummet due to massive shifts in living conditions like what occurred between 1900 and 1950.

I don't pay much attention to the city populations anymore, particularly when comparing Midwest cities to those down South. The city populations alone can be telling in regards to the resources available to the city government, but that seems to be about it. I can't imagine any 'old' Great Lakes city ever reaching its peak population in the next 50-75 years, if ever, and I don't think that's a problem.

 

The MSA and CSA populations and associated trends are much more interesting, and telling about the health of the region overall. The old "Rust Belt" metros are still relatively stagnant; from Buffalo to South Bend, Detroit to Dayton, almost none are seeing sustained regional growth, save Indy, Cols, and maybe Cincy. Detroit, Toledo, Cleveland, Akron, Pittsburgh, and many smaller cities are treading water, and have been since the 1970s.

 

 

I'm not even sure it's really possible to reach our peak populations again with improved living conditions. This is a huge factor that rarely, if ever, gets talked about. Back in 1900 people crammed themselves into tinier living spaces than they do today. A house that may have once housed two parents with 6 kids might house just 2 or 3 people today. Single occupancy buildings Downtown might now only house 1/20th the amount of people. It's entirely possible that every single plot of land in Cleveland could become occupied and we'd still be nowhere near that 900,000 mark. And that's fine. It's just a sign that the people who live in Cleveland live in better conditions. And the same thing has happened in every city in this country that grew before the turn of the 20th Century. NYC, Boston, Philly, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Cincy, St. Louis, Detroit, Chicago, etc. Yes, several of those suffered from mass abandonment as well, but even places like NYC that have seen nearly nonstop development since the 80s have just barely moved ahead of their peak population. Manhattan and Brooklyn are still below their peak populations (Manhattan by hundreds of thousands) but that's just because living conditions have improved.

 

Being a resident of OTR in Cincy, that's one thing I think people forget when they talk about the peak population of 45,000. Sure, that's a ton and awesome. But even if fully built out it's unlikely we'd be any more than half that. And that's because we're not cramming people into 90 square foot units that have a communal bathroom for 30 different units in a building. And that's a good thing.

 

Newer cities that grew up after the turn of the century, and more specifically after WWII, don't have this problem. Living conditions now aren't that different from post-WWII development. Therefore even as things change the population won't plummet due to massive shifts in living conditions like what occurred between 1900 and 1950.

 

Exactly.  Americans quite simply prefer more elbow room, and once it was practical to get it that's what they went for.  In yard size as well as house size.

 

This is the primary driving factor behind "sprawl".

^I'm not sure American's prefer more elbow room than anyone else in the world.  But we can afford it because our government(s) have made it affordable.  We've devalued our land and subsidized the outward growth of our cities at the expense of the core of our cities.  In most other countries building a 3,000 square foot home that will only last 40 years on one acre of land that you only have for aesthetic purposes would be insane and unattainable due to affordability issues or government mandates against such land use patterns.  We've obviously made other choices in our country... #freedom?

Exactly.  Americans quite simply prefer more elbow room, and once it was practical to get it that's what they went for.  In yard size as well as house size.

 

This is the primary driving factor behind "sprawl".

 

Government is the primary factor. Sprawl doesn't happen to the extent that it did if the GI bill spending for post-war housing, government subsidies for driving, for oil exploration, for stormwater management of all that pavement and roofs for huge stores, etc. Without it, most of us couldn't afford the so-called preference. If someone is going to subsidize the cost of me buying a Corvette vs. a Hyundai, of course I'm going to choose the Corvette. Doesn't mean the free market was the arbiter of that decision.

 

Now, declining incomes vs. cost of living and disenchantment with having to drive everywhere for everything is a reason population is growing faster in American cities than in suburbs for the first time since the 1920s. So cost is starting to come back into play again as a larger factor in determining where people live.

 

Exactly.  Americans quite simply prefer more elbow room, and once it was practical to get it that's what they went for.  In yard size as well as house size.

 

This is the primary driving factor behind "sprawl".

 

Government is the primary factor. Sprawl doesn't happen to the extent that it did if the GI bill spending for post-war housing, government subsidies for driving, for oil exploration, for stormwater management of all that pavement and roofs for huge stores, etc. Without it, most of us couldn't afford the so-called preference. If someone is going to subsidize the cost of me buying a Corvette vs. a Hyundai, of course I'm going to choose the Corvette. Doesn't mean the free market was the arbiter of that decision.

 

Now, declining incomes vs. cost of living and disenchantment with having to drive everywhere for everything is a reason population is growing faster in American cities than in suburbs for the first time since the 1920s. So cost is starting to come back into play again as a larger factor in determining where people live.

 

I heard a long time ago that in business, the third generation ran the company into the ground.  First generation built it, second grew up in it, third is handed the keys. It kinda sounds like Columbus.

 

50s boom = more housing + cars. OK cool, sounds like a plan, then...

------------------------------------

70s boom = I'm going to live better than my parents

90s boom = See above, plus a pool

10s boom = holy shit, it's a long drive to work

I don't pay much attention to the city populations anymore, particularly when comparing Midwest cities to those down South. The city populations alone can be telling in regards to the resources available to the city government, but that seems to be about it. I can't imagine any 'old' Great Lakes city ever reaching its peak population in the next 50-75 years, if ever, and I don't think that's a problem.

 

The MSA and CSA populations and associated trends are much more interesting, and telling about the health of the region overall. The old "Rust Belt" metros are still relatively stagnant; from Buffalo to South Bend, Detroit to Dayton, almost none are seeing sustained regional growth, save Indy, Cols, and maybe Cincy. Detroit, Toledo, Cleveland, Akron, Pittsburgh, and many smaller cities are treading water, and have been since the 1970s.

 

 

I'm not even sure it's really possible to reach our peak populations again with improved living conditions. This is a huge factor that rarely, if ever, gets talked about. Back in 1900 people crammed themselves into tinier living spaces than they do today. A house that may have once housed two parents with 6 kids might house just 2 or 3 people today. Single occupancy buildings Downtown might now only house 1/20th the amount of people. It's entirely possible that every single plot of land in Cleveland could become occupied and we'd still be nowhere near that 900,000 mark. And that's fine. It's just a sign that the people who live in Cleveland live in better conditions. And the same thing has happened in every city in this country that grew before the turn of the 20th Century. NYC, Boston, Philly, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Cincy, St. Louis, Detroit, Chicago, etc. Yes, several of those suffered from mass abandonment as well, but even places like NYC that have seen nearly nonstop development since the 80s have just barely moved ahead of their peak population. Manhattan and Brooklyn are still below their peak populations (Manhattan by hundreds of thousands) but that's just because living conditions have improved.

 

Being a resident of OTR in Cincy, that's one thing I think people forget when they talk about the peak population of 45,000. Sure, that's a ton and awesome. But even if fully built out it's unlikely we'd be any more than half that. And that's because we're not cramming people into 90 square foot units that have a communal bathroom for 30 different units in a building. And that's a good thing.

 

Newer cities that grew up after the turn of the century, and more specifically after WWII, don't have this problem. Living conditions now aren't that different from post-WWII development. Therefore even as things change the population won't plummet due to massive shifts in living conditions like what occurred between 1900 and 1950.

 

Exactly.  Americans quite simply prefer more elbow room, and once it was practical to get it that's what they went for.  In yard size as well as house size.

 

This is the primary driving factor behind "sprawl".

 

Actually, the primary driving factor behind sprawl is subsidization of infrastructure and green field development.

I don't pay much attention to the city populations anymore, particularly when comparing Midwest cities to those down South. The city populations alone can be telling in regards to the resources available to the city government, but that seems to be about it. I can't imagine any 'old' Great Lakes city ever reaching its peak population in the next 50-75 years, if ever, and I don't think that's a problem.

 

The MSA and CSA populations and associated trends are much more interesting, and telling about the health of the region overall. The old "Rust Belt" metros are still relatively stagnant; from Buffalo to South Bend, Detroit to Dayton, almost none are seeing sustained regional growth, save Indy, Cols, and maybe Cincy. Detroit, Toledo, Cleveland, Akron, Pittsburgh, and many smaller cities are treading water, and have been since the 1970s.

 

 

I'm not even sure it's really possible to reach our peak populations again with improved living conditions. This is a huge factor that rarely, if ever, gets talked about. Back in 1900 people crammed themselves into tinier living spaces than they do today. A house that may have once housed two parents with 6 kids might house just 2 or 3 people today. Single occupancy buildings Downtown might now only house 1/20th the amount of people. It's entirely possible that every single plot of land in Cleveland could become occupied and we'd still be nowhere near that 900,000 mark. And that's fine. It's just a sign that the people who live in Cleveland live in better conditions. And the same thing has happened in every city in this country that grew before the turn of the 20th Century. NYC, Boston, Philly, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Cincy, St. Louis, Detroit, Chicago, etc. Yes, several of those suffered from mass abandonment as well, but even places like NYC that have seen nearly nonstop development since the 80s have just barely moved ahead of their peak population. Manhattan and Brooklyn are still below their peak populations (Manhattan by hundreds of thousands) but that's just because living conditions have improved.

 

Being a resident of OTR in Cincy, that's one thing I think people forget when they talk about the peak population of 45,000. Sure, that's a ton and awesome. But even if fully built out it's unlikely we'd be any more than half that. And that's because we're not cramming people into 90 square foot units that have a communal bathroom for 30 different units in a building. And that's a good thing.

 

Newer cities that grew up after the turn of the century, and more specifically after WWII, don't have this problem. Living conditions now aren't that different from post-WWII development. Therefore even as things change the population won't plummet due to massive shifts in living conditions like what occurred between 1900 and 1950.

 

Exactly.  Americans quite simply prefer more elbow room, and once it was practical to get it that's what they went for.  In yard size as well as house size.

 

This is the primary driving factor behind "sprawl".

 

Actually, the primary driving factor behind sprawl is subsidization of infrastructure and green field development.

 

No, that's a manifestation and a facilitation.  A secondary driving factor at best.

 

Americans place a higher value on personal space than most of Europe seem to, and a way higher value than is seen in Asia.  That's quite clear.

 

I would bet that Columbus's lower density is largely the result of greenfields, while Cleveland's comes from brownfields (including former residential areas).

Secondary at best? The government has poured literal trillions into making the most affordable, accessible housing option suburban sprawl.

 

Your assumptions about Americans vs. Europeans have been greatly debated before and there's no quantifiable evidence that leans in your favor other than the fact that so many of us live in suburban locations. But the fact that that is quickly changing with more and more people looking to move to denser areas and downsize suggests maybe you're projecting your own personal beliefs onto an entire population.

If the US subsidized lobster dinners and Europe didn't, and thus Americans ate a lot more lobster, does that mean Americans place a higher value on lobster than Europeans? 

If the US subsidized lobster dinners and Europe didn't, and thus Americans ate a lot more lobster, does that mean Americans place a higher value on lobster than Europeans? 

 

God I wish the US would subsidize lobster dinners.

^We do

The funny thing about this debate is that in my opinion, there is no better example of the libertarian argument against government than this sprawl thing. It is the textbook example:

 

1. Government pours billions into an initiative. This initiative creates market distortions that shift the equilibrium. In this case, the price of living in the suburbs decreases, so the demand increases.

2. The market distortions have all kinds of unintended consequences on society. Car commuting hurts the environment, costs tons of money for commuters, creates unsustainable infrastructure costs for governments, and wastes people's time.

 

I was a big Ron Paul libertarian in college. These days I've gone towards the left in many ways but I still consider myself something of a libertarian or at least highly influenced by it. Big appreciator of the invisible hand of the market.

 

Back in the laissez-faire era we had big crowded cities. After the New Deal we now have sprawl. It's so obvious.

 

In my estimation, conservatives and libertarians should be shouting this sprawl argument from the rooftops. It's a beautiful and elegant argument for the unintended consequences of government spending.

 

But they aren't, because large portions of Republican voters live in and prefer sprawly areas so of course, they ignore it in this case and stick to yelling about social engineering, when clearly the real social engineering is the suburbanization!

 

It's just another example of how conservatives selectively exempt the parts of government that they like from their principles. Some of them do it subconsciously, some consciously. There are some real libertarians who maintain consistency, but they are not usually found in the phony libertarian circles of the US right wing echo chamber.

It's just another example of how conservatives selectively exempt the parts of government that they like from their principles. Some of them do it subconsciously, some consciously. There are some real libertarians who maintain consistency, but they are not usually found in the phony libertarian circles of the US right wing echo chamber.

 

"Conservatives don't want big government. Until they do."

-Rand Paul talking to Jon Stewart last nite on The Daily Show

The funny thing about this debate is that in my opinion, there is no better example of the libertarian argument against government than this sprawl thing. It is the textbook example:

 

1. Government pours billions into an initiative. This initiative creates market distortions that shift the equilibrium. In this case, the price of living in the suburbs decreases, so the demand increases.

2. The market distortions have all kinds of unintended consequences on society. Car commuting hurts the environment, costs tons of money for commuters, creates unsustainable infrastructure costs for governments, and wastes people's time.

 

I was a big Ron Paul libertarian in college. These days I've gone towards the left in many ways but I still consider myself something of a libertarian or at least highly influenced by it. Big appreciator of the invisible hand of the market.

 

Back in the laissez-faire era we had big crowded cities. After the New Deal we now have sprawl. It's so obvious.

 

In my estimation, conservatives and libertarians should be shouting this sprawl argument from the rooftops. It's a beautiful and elegant argument for the unintended consequences of government spending.

 

But they aren't, because large portions of Republican voters live in and prefer sprawly areas so of course, they ignore it in this case and stick to yelling about social engineering, when clearly the real social engineering is the suburbanization!

 

It's just another example of how conservatives selectively exempt the parts of government that they like from their principles. Some of them do it subconsciously, some consciously. There are some real libertarians who maintain consistency, but they are not usually found in the phony libertarian circles of the US right wing echo chamber.

 

I'm not a purist libertarian by any means, but I consider it an indirect manifestation of same that it's better to spend money on things people have shown they want, rather than what is considered to be "good for them".  Sprawl is an example of that.

 

We've discussed in the sprawl thread what actually triggered it after World War II.  Government promotion of it was only a small factor.  While government spending has facilitated sprawl, in my view that was driven by the demand rather than vice versa, especially early on.

[quote author=E Rocc link=topic=10856.msg757864#msg757864 date=1432810733

 

We've discussed in the sprawl thread what actually triggered it after World War II.  Government promotion of it was only a small factor.  While government spending has facilitated sprawl, in my view that was driven by the demand rather than vice versa, especially early on.[/color]

 

I would agree with this statement.

 

I remember talking bout this with my grandfather years ago about why he left Philadelphia.  When he returned home from the war, thanks to the segregated policies of the armed forces many blacks turned to factory jobs in the post-depression economy.    When the white soldiers got home, they found new demographics awaiting them, along with easy opportunity to move away with a booming economy. 

The funny thing about this debate is that in my opinion, there is no better example of the libertarian argument against government than this sprawl thing. It is the textbook example:

 

1. Government pours billions into an initiative. This initiative creates market distortions that shift the equilibrium. In this case, the price of living in the suburbs decreases, so the demand increases.

2. The market distortions have all kinds of unintended consequences on society. Car commuting hurts the environment, costs tons of money for commuters, creates unsustainable infrastructure costs for governments, and wastes people's time.

 

I was a big Ron Paul libertarian in college. These days I've gone towards the left in many ways but I still consider myself something of a libertarian or at least highly influenced by it. Big appreciator of the invisible hand of the market.

 

Back in the laissez-faire era we had big crowded cities. After the New Deal we now have sprawl. It's so obvious.

 

In my estimation, conservatives and libertarians should be shouting this sprawl argument from the rooftops. It's a beautiful and elegant argument for the unintended consequences of government spending.

 

But they aren't, because large portions of Republican voters live in and prefer sprawly areas so of course, they ignore it in this case and stick to yelling about social engineering, when clearly the real social engineering is the suburbanization!

 

It's just another example of how conservatives selectively exempt the parts of government that they like from their principles. Some of them do it subconsciously, some consciously. There are some real libertarians who maintain consistency, but they are not usually found in the phony libertarian circles of the US right wing echo chamber.

 

I'm not a purist libertarian by any means, but I consider it an indirect manifestation of same that it's better to spend money on things people have shown they want, rather than what is considered to be "good for them".  Sprawl is an example of that.

 

We've discussed in the sprawl thread what actually triggered it after World War II.  Government promotion of it was only a small factor.  While government spending has facilitated sprawl, in my view that was driven by the demand rather than vice versa, especially early on.

 

I definitely agree that people wanted roads and suburbs and sprawl after WWII... it was a completely undisputed, bipartisan thing. But even if people want something, it can throw things way out of balance if the cost of that thing is artificially decreased. There is more to supply and demand than what people want. It's also a matter of what they can afford and the costs of those things compared to other things.

Not only that, but think about the alternatives back then. It's no surprise people wanted to leave cities. They weren't nice. Many people lived in slums with no plumbing, no electricity, people jammed into tiny spaces, very little park space, etc. The suburbs were a way of getting out of the filthy, polluted, miserable city. I don't blame people of the time. But that's changed. If you showed someone the conditions of a revitalized OTR who lived there in 1900 they'd not recognize it. Clean, updated, plenty of space for everyone, every person gets a toilet, electricity everywhere, etc. It's a different world. Those reasons for needing to get out of the city after WWII don't apply to 2015 America. Space wasn't the driver, the disgusting conditions were.

No, the FHA made buying a new house in the suburbs cheaper than renting an old one in the city.  Mortgages for new construction were simple to apply and qualify for whereas renovation loans for existing structures were more difficult to get and the loans were often too small.  Plus, only white people could buy houses anywhere they wanted.  If they could afford one, blacks were limited to buying homes in redlined areas.   

 

The system was totally and completely rigged against cities. 

The cities were not good places to live.  They were crowded, hot in the summer, cold in the winter, and as Jmicha said, the plumbing was poor.  People wanted out if they could get out. 

And the moment the federal government made it cheaper to do so, they did. There's very little mystery as to why Americans sprawled out after WWII. Terrible conditions that are more expensive, or new construction in much better conditions that's subsidized and therefore cheaper? I know what I'd pick in that situation.

it's better to spend money on things people have shown they want, rather than what is considered to be "good for them".

 

In the interest of not taking this discussion off-topic, I'm just gonna go ahead and save this quote ;)

Pavement isn't anything new. It's been around for centuries. It wasn't private corporations building and improving roads into the suburbs -- except for the paved strips between the rails of streetcar tracks which were funded by the streetcar companies. But the automakers, petroleum companies and road builders all undertook a public policy campaign for cars and suburbia and against trains/transit and the crowded dirty city rather than attempting to clean up cities and making them more attractive. Their goal was to destroy cities because their land use make car ownership and usage inconvenient.

 

The popularity of sprawl and the car is all about infrastructure and who's building/financing/owning/maintaining it. While railroads and transit systems were started as private sector entities and urged to remain so, the car would never be popular if it had to rely on government-neglected roads like this:

 

 

To this (thanks Cuyahoga County Engineers for paving the roads, not GM or Standard Oil or Great Lakes Thoroughfares Inc.):

 

 

 

To this (thanks Ohio Department of Transportation, not We Pave The World LLC):

 

it's better to spend money on things people have shown they want, rather than what is considered to be "good for them".

 

In the interest of not taking this discussion off-topic, I'm just gonna go ahead and save this quote ;)

 

Please do.  I post in places where I'm the ideological minority to learn and reconsider, not to preach.

And the moment the federal government made it cheaper to do so, they did. There's very little mystery as to why Americans sprawled out after WWII. Terrible conditions that are more expensive, or new construction in much better conditions that's subsidized and therefore cheaper? I know what I'd pick in that situation.

 

It wasn't just the crowding, though that was a big part of it to be sure, especially for returning vets who had had their fill of barracks and shipboard accomodations.

 

Those vets had construction experience that translated much better towards building new things such as roads and houses than to repairing old ones. They also had experience with motorized transportation. Plus, it is easier for politicians to take credit for new and modern things than it is for rebuilding old ones, especially private property.

 

There was also a conscious government effort to disperse population and industry to reduce vulnerability to atomic attack. This became less relevant when nuclear (hyrdogen) weapons were developed, but the trend had momentum.

 

Indeed, trends do have momentum and that's what makes this topic relevant to this thread.  If government and planners ignore the real reasons people did things, the people will ignore them in return.

it's better to spend money on things people have shown they want, rather than what is considered to be "good for them".

 

In the interest of not taking this discussion off-topic, I'm just gonna go ahead and save this quote ;)

 

Please do.  I post in places where I'm the ideological minority to learn and reconsider, not to preach.

 

Cool. Then you also support a better balance between road and transit spending, as well as a greater balance between quality urban and suburban housing choices because the polls show that's what the people want. Elected officials don't listen to the sheep, only the shepherds.

 

it's better to spend money on things people have shown they want, rather than what is considered to be "good for them".

 

Yes I prefer Free Ice Cream Friday too.

Well first, in order for the government to be capable of actually understanding what the people want it should stop using completely outdated projections and statistics that haven't come true in 15 years. I'm looking at you VMT projections that almost every department of transportation uses.

it's better to spend money on things people have shown they want, rather than what is considered to be "good for them".

 

In the interest of not taking this discussion off-topic, I'm just gonna go ahead and save this quote ;)

 

Please do.  I post in places where I'm the ideological minority to learn and reconsider, not to preach.

 

Cool. Then you also support a better balance between road and transit spending, as well as a greater balance between quality urban and suburban housing choices because the polls show that's what the people want. Elected officials don't listen to the sheep, only the shepherds.

 

Haven't I made my share of proposals for transit plans, albeit those that don't fit the "one size fits all" model?  As well as growth of urban neighborhoods and balancing the city and the sprawl? 

Haven't I made my share of proposals for transit plans, albeit those that don't fit the "one size fits all" model?  As well as growth of urban neighborhoods and balancing the city and the sprawl? 

 

Yes. You are a man among boys, er sheep. :)

Haven't I made my share of proposals for transit plans, albeit those that don't fit the "one size fits all" model?  As well as growth of urban neighborhoods and balancing the city and the sprawl? 

 

Yes. You are a man among boys, er sheep. :)

 

I prefer not to be a sheep as it attracts Steelers fans.  :evil:

Well first, in order for the government to be capable of actually understanding what the people want it should stop using completely outdated projections and statistics that haven't come true in 15 years. I'm looking at you VMT projections that almost every department of transportation uses.

 

They use the numbers that support their asphalt lobby friends.

The cities were not good places to live.  They were crowded, hot in the summer, cold in the winter, and as Jmicha said, the plumbing was poor.  People wanted out if they could get out. 

 

Not to mention by 1945, there had been at least 15 years of almost no investment or maintenance of the existing housing stock, much of it between 20-80 years old at that time, even as most (?) households had access to an automobile by 1930. Poor urban housing + polluted urban environments + relatively reliable personal transportation + federal policies that encouraged the decentralization of industry (for fear of nuclear war) + moves to desegregate (public) housing and a growing black urban population in the cities, AND federal housing policies that promoted sprawl all contributed to the flight of middle class whites to the burbs. 

The cities were not good places to live.  They were crowded, hot in the summer, cold in the winter, and as Jmicha said, the plumbing was poor.  People wanted out if they could get out. 

 

Not to mention by 1945, there had been at least 15 years of almost no investment or maintenance of the existing housing stock, much of it between 20-80 years old at that time, even as most (?) households had access to an automobile by 1930. Poor urban housing + polluted urban environments + relatively reliable personal transportation + federal policies that encouraged the decentralization of industry (for fear of nuclear war) + moves to desegregate (public) housing and a growing black urban population in the cities, AND federal housing policies that promoted sprawl all contributed to the flight of middle class whites to the burbs. 

 

Nyah, see?

I think one thing that has not been mentioned about Columbus is that the great slowdown in annexation (only about 30 square miles in the last 25 years) may have something to do with the Win-Win Agreement about Columbus City Schools that went into effect about that time. Up until then, any new land annexed into Columbus could still be in a suburban school district. Since then, any annexed territory is automatically in Columbus City Schools.

 

If you look at a recent map of the Columbus City Schools boundary, it is basically a central blob(like it has been for some time) but there are also little sections scattered about, in some cases quite far away the old city schools boundary, that look like little planets orbiting the larger sun of CCS. Columbus grew primarily by annexing undeveloped land, not established subdivisions. Columbus tried for years to annex the established areas of Lincoln Village and Blacklick Estates-no way they were going to Columbus.

 

Given that annexation means Columbus schools, no existing area(IMO) is going to choose to go from a suburban school district to Columbus schools. And Columbus is pretty much surrounded now except for a few areas. No more existing areas in Delaware County are going to go to Columbus-southern Delaware County is pretty much developed now. With New Albany, Gahanna, Pataskala, Reynoldsburg, Pickerington, Canal Winchester, and Groveport presenting an almost unbroken wall to the East/Southeast, and with the northwest expansion checked by Hilliard and Dublin, there are only two areas for growth- between Hilliard and Grove City to the west, and between Grove City and Rickenbacker to the south.

 

The southern area is really not suitable for much development, and the western area is blocked by the Darby Accord- it has pretty much reached the western limit available.

 

At this point I don't think Columbus could significantly grow in area(as in grow into developable areas) if it wanted to.  It is going to have to be a process of densifying and filling in to maintain growth. There are still some pockets here and there and some land on the periphery, but it is not a lot of area left.

 

The same thing that has happened to Columbus has happened to a number of sunbelt cities as well. Dallas is locked in by suburbs, Phoenix is blocked in except for an area to the north, Indy is locked in to Marion County, and has pretty much filled that in except for some areas in the southwest and southeast. These cities are now in the same position that other cities are- locked in by suburbs. Annexation just bought time, but now many of them are in the same boat as other locked in cities. As the sprawl continues, it will not be within city limits, but in the suburbs. In this last estimate, just three of Indy's suburbs together grew more than Indy itself. For Dallas. Frisco and other outer burbs are booming. For Phoenix the same thing.

Given that annexation means Columbus schools, no existing area(IMO) is going to choose to go from a suburban school district to Columbus schools. And Columbus is pretty much surrounded now except for a few areas. No more existing areas in Delaware County are going to go to Columbus-southern Delaware County is pretty much developed now. With New Albany, Gahanna, Pataskala, Reynoldsburg, Pickerington, Canal Winchester, and Groveport presenting an almost unbroken wall to the East/Southeast, and with the northwest expansion checked by Hilliard and Dublin, there are only two areas for growth- between Hilliard and Grove City to the west, and between Grove City and Rickenbacker to the south.

 

The New Albany area  is still open to expansion if necessary.

 

The southern area is really not suitable for much development,

The southern area near Scioto Downs  is forbidden from annexation for the long term.

 

and the western area is blocked by the Darby Accord- it has pretty much reached the western limit available.

 

Columbus has already secured the western border :)

 

 

At this point I don't think Columbus could significantly grow in area(as in grow into developable areas) if it wanted to.  It is going to have to be a process of densifying and filling in to maintain growth. There are still some pockets here and there and some land on the periphery, but it is not a lot of area left.

 

I agree, but I don't think it's a dire as you say.  Columbus has plenty of room to grow if needed...the if needed part being important.

 

Edit: I believe in some areas Columbus is reaching the feasible limit of its water/sewer system (gravity is a cruel mistress) so some of the former selling points (annex for water) are moot.

Cool. Then you also support a better balance between road and transit spending, as well as a greater balance between quality urban and suburban housing choices because the polls show that's what the people want. Elected officials don't listen to the sheep, only the shepherds.

 

How true. Check out this quote from a Cincinnati Enquirer article on Ohio legislators ignoring an ODOT study's call for more transit funding. The legislator basically admits that he listens to lobbyists rather see public needs for himself.

 

Simply put, public transportation isn't a priority at the statehouse, lawmakers and transit advocates say. Operating money for bus and passenger rail is not even in the transportation budget. And one lawmaker turns the argument back on public transportation advocates, citing what he calls the lack of a strong and unified lobbying effort.

 

"There are causes that build a story and lay the groundwork to try to get money – higher education, school lunch programs, scholarship assistance," said Rep. Tom Brinkman, the Mount Lookout Republican. "Public transportation is nowhere to be found."

 

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2015/05/23/ohio-ignored-bus-rail-study/27867629/?fb_ref=Default

 

He's got a point.  Can't win if you don't play the game.

That's the problem: Governing is not supposed to be a game. Yeah, yeah. I know I'm being naive and idealistic. But they only get away with it because too many of us shrug our shoulders, turn our backs and say, "Oh, well. That's just the way the rigged game is played."

I responded to the transit funding and lobbying question in the appropriate thread.....

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,9832.msg758306.html#msg758306

I found threads for Dayton and Toledo brain drain but none for Cincinnati so I'm posting this here.

 

I graduated from UC's Electronic Media program. Many of my peers went into fields like video production, audio production, TV news, or radio. We have an alumni Facebook group that I keep my eye on, and there are two common themes -- people living in Cincinnati looking to move to LA or NYC and looking for a job in one of those cities; and people living in bigger cities looking for a job in Cincinnati so they can move back. I have watched some of the people my age boomerang around from some other city, back to Cincinnati, to another city, then back to Cincinnati. I think there must be a constant struggle in many of their minds -- should I move to NYC or LA where I could potentially "make it" but the costs of living are extremely high; or should I come to Cincinnati and work for one of the local media production companies where I can work on projects that maybe aren't as high profile but I can have a more comfortable life?

 

Ultimately this trend makes me more hopeful about Cincinnati's long-term future. The more people from Cincinnati visit and live in other places, get exposed to new ideas, and then move back to Cincinnati--the more those ideas are going to influence our city. People who move back to Cincinnati after living in LA or NYC are going to be frequent visitors (or perhaps residents) of Downtown. They're going to visit restaurants and parks and other amenities that the average life-long Cincinnatian won't.

taestell, my ex had similar problems. He got his degree in radio/TV production but the jobs here in Ohio (he lived in Cincy for awhile but has mostly been Cleveland-based post-college) are few and far between. They're hard to get, and the people who have the ones that are available stay in them forever. Companies go out of business more often than jobs open up. He has spent his "career" doing stuff like shooting court depositions and as the AV guy for hotels and big businesses. It's disappointing.

 

Because he couldn't get more experience here, it was hard to boomerang to a job in LA. We worked for a few years to try to get out there but neither of us could move without us BOTH having income/a job and it just never worked out. I got a couple of offers but I have more marketable skills than he does and could work in any major metro area. Then we had our child, and moving after that just seemed out of the question. You REALLY have to have steady income when you have a baby to take care of, so he's still working the AV job and it's been years and years.

 

I think he should have left right after college and not have even bothered to try to make it here if he wanted a career using his skills. I just don't think the market for this work is big enough to sustain someone who wants to have a regular, 8-5 type office job in Ohio.

edit